Disadvantages of Keto diet

KetoneKaren

@Hornsby The reason the wording bothered me is because he honed in on the "4oz" piece rather than the fact that I have lost 21 lbs of fat and managed to preserve muscle mass, even allowing for a margin of error inherent in all measuring devices short of autopsy. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I felt dismissed.

Hornsby

KetoneKaren wrote: »

@Hornsby The reason the wording bothered me is because he honed in on the "4oz" piece rather than the fact that I have lost 21 lbs of fat and managed to preserve muscle mass, even allowing for a margin of error inherent in all measuring devices short of autopsy. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I felt dismissed.

I see. Well, I assumed you were replying in regards to the muscle gain discussion that was going on when you posted. I assume @FunkyTobias was thinking the same thing. Making that really the only thing worth discussing/rebutting. Whether the numbers are accurate or not doesn't change the fact that you are having great progress.

KetoneKaren

@Hornsby Just curious, as I truly do not know...should I have expected to lose, maintain, or gain muscle mass during the loss of 21lbs? I am a 62 y.o. postmenopausal woman. I exercise 5 days a week and include resistance training in addtion to cardio. I want to start StrongLifts but have actually just started doing a kettle bell routine the last 2 weeks, so am going slow to be sure of technique and to avoid injury. I posted not to offer any opinion, but rather as a statement of fact. I didn't expect to invite ridicule, rather sorry now.

psuLemon

KetoneKaren wrote: »

@Hornsby Just curious, as I truly do not know...should I have expected to lose, maintain, or gain muscle mass during the loss of 21lbs? I am a 62 y.o. postmenopausal woman. I exercise 5 days a week and include resistance training in addtion to cardio. I want to start StrongLifts but have actually just started doing a kettle bell routine the last 2 weeks, so am going slow to be sure of technique and to avoid injury. I posted not to offer any opinion, but rather as a statement of fact. I didn't expect to invite ridicule, rather sorry now.

By doing resistance training and eating adequste protein, you should expect to minimize loss of lean body mass. If you actually gain is kind of irrelevant for the most part, as long as you are happy with your body and your progress.

KetoneKaren

@psulemon I admit I actually expected to lose muscle mass as I lost weight and am pleased that I probably have not, or at least not much, even taking into account the inaccuracy of non-vivisection body analysis.

Edited to clarify

psuLemon

KetoneKaren wrote: »

@psulemon I admit I actually expected to lose muscle mass as I lost weight and am pleased that I probably have not, or at least not much, even taking into account the inaccuracy of non-vivisection body analysis.

Edited to clarify

Just keep it and ignore the rest.

Hornsby

Obviously, you have a lot riding against you when it comes to building mass but if you were basically brand new to lifting I would think you are probably suffering minimal to 0 loss of lean mass. Another thing, that when we lift and use our muscles, they fill with water and become more efficient that which can make them feel fuller/harder which can translate to some as "bigger". Is it technically bigger, well is a sponge the same size when it's dry versus wet? Basically the same and somewhat debatable I guess. Add that transformation with the added fat loss and it can be very deceptive. There is a saying... "The fastest way to gain ten pounds of muscle is to lose ten pounds of fat". Kinda rambled. Sorry.

KetoneKaren

@Hornsby Same exercise routine for a long time, weight loss is since April when I started logging. I am not talking about subjective perception of muscle mass. Done in internist's office.

Edited to add - only new exercise has just been the last 2 weeks with beginner's kettle bell routine

ninerbuff

nvmomketo wrote: »

show previous quotes

ninerbuff wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

But who said those anabolic hormones are reduced to a level where they are not effective? IGF-1 may go down somewhat but the brain's receptors of IGF-1 increases so are the benefits actually lost?

Insulin levels between a diet with adequate carbs (moderate) and LCHF are not actually that different. It's just the source of glucose that is (diet or liver).

From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340 again:

"Plasma glucose and serum insulin were not significantly different between groups at rest and during exercise but increased during the last hour of recovery in the HC athletes, likely due to the greater amount of carbohydrate in the shake (Fig. 5A and . There was no significant difference between groups in insulin resistance as determined by HOMA. Serum lactate responses were variable, but were significantly higher in LC athletes during the last hour of exercise (Fig. 5C)."

A higher carb diet, or right after a carby meal, there will be more insulin.

IDK. I guess each person must decide what risks to take. More insulin and IGF-1 for greater muscle gains but it does come with the risk of what higher levels of those hormones may lead to. For people already at risk for those health problems (IR or cancer - often the overweight people) maximizng muscle gains may with higher anabolic hormones may not be their best choice.

But then you think they can't gain muscle if they don't take that risk...

Link me a study that shows that testosterone ISN'T reduced on a ketogenic diet. I've haven't seen one that doesn't show this happen. Lower testosterone ends up in catabolism, not anabolism.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Link me a study that shows testosterone is reduced in a negative way.

In this study, the researchers divided their subjects into 2 groups. The other group ate a high-carb low-protein diet, whereas the other group ate a high-protein low-carb diet. Fat intake and calories were identical. Ten days into the study, the results showed that the high-carb group had significantly higher free testosterone levels (+36%), lower SHBG levels, and lower cortisol levels when compared to the high-protein low-carb group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976
In this study, the researchers found out that in exercising men, the stress hormone cortisol increases rapidly when they’re put on low-carb diets. Needless to say that this is pretty bad thing for testosterone production.http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

Those are interesting but not definitive when it comes to a low carb high fat ketogenic diet.

Not definitive? In every study testosterone is lowered when carbs are reduced or omitted. Combine this with the previous studies of mTOR, IGF-1, etc. being disrupted by keto diets and you're still not believing that muscle building isn't likely?

Some the links are dealing with high protein or high carb diets. Not LCHF. It may be relevant but it may not.

Carbs are DIRECTLY related to testosterone production. Lack of it lowers it. Lower testosterone results in less muscle hypertrophy. That's not debated by physiology or endocrinology.

Other links had high levels of carbs still (such as 60% carbs as a control an 30% carbs considered to be low carb). At that level there will be no noticeable ketosis except while fasting during sleep. Their test subjects would still be relying on glucose for all fuel. Dietary glucose was reduced but that might just stress a person's body if there is no other fuel, I imagine.

They were also very short 3 day tests. Not much time to adapt, so it was mainly looking at the time of adjustment. It takes a few days to adjust to a ketogenic diet and the use of alternate energy to help fuel the brain... and that won't happen on a moderate carb diet anyways.

I went looking into alternate fuels to drive those pathways and this got into it a bit.

Hypothalamic glucose sensing: making ends meet

Nutrients Other than Glucose

Hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons also respond to other nutrient-related signals in addition to glucose. Within the VMH, there is overlap between GE and GI neurons and neurons whose activity is altered by free fatty acids and ketones (Wang et al., 2005; Le Foll et al., 2013, 2014). Neuronal fatty acid sensing is consistent with data showing that central fatty acid infusion modulates glucose-induced insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Cruciani-Guglielmacci et al., 2004; Migrenne et al., 2006; Marsollier et al., 2009; Le Foll et al., 2013). In contrast to glucose and fatty acids, direct evidence of amino acid sensing neurons has been elusive. Administration of the branched chain amino acid L-leucine, but not valine, into the third ventricle decreases food intake; an effect which appears to be mediated by the hypothalamic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (Cota et al., 2006). The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin restores NO production by VMH GI neurons during hyperglycemia suggesting potential overlap in glucose and amino acid sensing pathways in these neurons (Canabal et al., 2007a). Moreover, Blouet et al. demonstrated that direct application of leucine increased the action potential frequency of POMC neurons (Blouet et al., 2009). Taken together these data support the hypothesis that hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons integrate multiple nutrient signals; however this has yet to be definitely shown for amino acids.

It goes on to discus alternate fuel sources:

"...When liver glycogen is depleted, muscle catabolism is initially necessary to provide amino acids as substrates for gluconeogenesis. Muscle catabolism is clearly detrimental in the long term and after several days of starvation, increased conversion of fatty acids to ketones in the liver provides fuel to the brain and spares lean body mass (Straub et al., 2010). It seems likely that glucose sensing neurons, particularly GI neurons, are important for informing the brain of the potential magnitude of a threat to the brain energy supply during starvation and aiding in energy mobilization.

In support of this, in general the hormonal changes which occur during fasting (e.g., reduced leptin and increased ghrelin) activate GI neurons and/or enhance their activation by decreased glucose (Cai et al., 1999; López et al., 2000; Diano et al., 2003; Kohno et al., 2003, 2008; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009b; Sheng et al., 2014)...."

I looks like some of these pathways could be ketone driven but it hasn't been looked into too deeply. Regardless, the finctions of the brain that do need glucose would get that from gluconeogenesis. The liver does not just make the bare minimum. It pumps out glucose as needed, and can even pump out some excess amounts.

To me, it seems you are arguing the need to have (eat) excess glucose in order to gain muscle as compared to adequate glucose (possibly due to gluconeogenesis or a low to modeate carb diet). People in ketosis still have glucose. They still have insulin, GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Perhaps not as much as a carb loading person. Not an excessive amount. Is excess needed? I'd say no. Might it be helpful? Sure.

I know of a few low carbers who lift heavy. They are strong and muscley. I realize I won't be able to convince you that muscle gains can occur on a fat and protein diet, just like you won't be able to convince me that muscle gains can't occur. To me it feels like I am being told dogs don't exist while I sit next to my dog. Perhaps you feel the same way since you work at helping people grow muscles in as efficient manner as possible. A ketogenic diet may not be it (although I would hope you would consider LCHF for those you help with insulin resistance). Anyways, I do appreciate you looking at it. It's been an interesting discussion.

Hormones (unless the organ secreting them is dysfunctional) will always be there yes. But lifestyle and diet DIRECTLY affect efficiency. Every link I posted supports that. Your stance is that because they are just present, you anecdotally believe that muscle building is still effectively possible. I liken it to have a full sink of oily dishes, a basin of water and having enough dish washing liquid to effectively wash the dishes. Reduce the amount of dish washing liquid significantly, and that's not going to happen. You'd be able to rinse the dishes, but they wouldn't effectively be cleaned. What I've stated, with evidence to support and back it up, along with direct experience (I've done keto many times for 12-16 weeks at a time for contest prep), I can emphatically say that keto diets aren't effective for muscle building.

Not definitive... yes. A 3 day ketogenic diet? A 30% carb "low carb" diet?

Yes, low carb lowers testosterone in women with PCOS. I haven't seen that a ketogenic diet lowers testosterone in men. Or maybe I overlooked your link on ketogenic diets lowering men's testosterone? If so, apologies. Perhaps you could post it again?

And your stance is that because adequate levels of hormones are present (during a very LCHF diet) that muscle building can not take place? The hormones need to be elevated for muscle building to occur?

As for your anecdote, I don't see it that way. Excess carbs is like excess soap. Do you really need that many bubbles?

There was another thread discussing low carb today. One poster, @Danny_Boy13 brought up his succesful gains in just a short period of time eating LCHF starting on page 4 or 5. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10426373/low-carb-does-work#latest Muscle gains are possible on a very low carb diet. It may not be the most effective way to gain muscle, but it works just fine. Saying muscle gains are impossible on a LCHF diet is simply not correct.

We aren't going to agree on this...

You having not seen testosterone lowering in men is anecdotal though. A ketogenic diet is basically devoid of carbs, and even along with your link, you can see that testosterone levels go down. How are you disputing against the initial links of hormones and signal pathways being inefficient for muscle building in the peer reviewed studies?
And Dannyboy used an Inbody machine for measuring. I am VERY FAMILIAR with it since we use it at our gym. Accuracy level, not that reliable because it's still using bio imepedance. Any changes in water in the body change the percentages easily.
And yes, incorrect hormone amounts disrupt the muscle building process. If you don't think that HOW MUCH matters, then explain insulin?
Now is building significant muscle on keto possible? Nothing is impossible. Improbable, yes. I'll stick with the actual science and feel free to link something more credible then anecdotes when you find them.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I don't see where testosterone goes down. Honest. You had a couple links where it went down in the first three days while the subjects were adjusting to a low carb diet. You had another where GnRH goes down but I have read where the receptors are more active when carbs are cut. I'm missing it.

And I never said those pathways are inefficient for building muscle. I did think I agreed that a high carb diet may help people build muscle better or faster. I am arguing with the initial denial you made that muscle gains could not be made on a ketogenic diet. Now you are saying significant muscle gains on keto could be possible. (I'll ignore the improbabl.) That was my point. It can be done. People are doing it even without preconceived ideal hormone amounts (like high insulin).

Significant meaning visually. Could one possibly build .05lbs of muscle in a year on keto? I can't say no to that, but .05lbs ISN'T significant in a year's worth of work. There isn't any debate that muscle hypertrophy happens without a few things: high enough protein to build it, enough calories to support mass gain, progressive overload resistance training, and hormones to provide protein synthesis for Satellite cells to increase myofibrillar thickness.
I can't say it how many times, but the initial link I posted shows studies of how the keto diet affects how hormones and signal pathways AREN'T activated to promote protein synthesis. It's there in black and white, so I don't know why you're choosing to ignore it.
And let's clarify: I DO NOT believe keto diet (based on scientific evidence) builds any significant muscle. You seem to think it happens without any evidence except anecdotal ones.
And please, if you're going to spout off about hormones, again answer the question I've been asking since you just believe that the presence of a hormone is enough: does the LEVEL of any hormone in the body matter in how the body metabolizes macronutrients? Because if it doesn't matter we should be all lean and thin whether we overeat or not.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I never said keto was faster for muscle building. Ever. I just said it can be done. Don't worry. Your carb loading is number 1 position is not being disputed. No need to defend that.

Those pathways you are talking about are not shut off on a ketogenic diet. That would imply I have made no insulin, testosterone, IGF-1, or GH for the past 14 months because I ate below 20g of carbs per day for most of that time. It just isn't true.

It doesn't say that you DON'T make hormones. It states that signal pathways and actual levels are different.
Why do people do keto? So they can utilize fat as a primary source of energy right? Now tell me that if insulin was secreted at the same level as eating a meal with carbs will result in lypolysis effectively?

In some people (like with testosterone in a woman with PCOS) the hormone production might be slowed. It isn't suddenly stopped when carbs are not eaten. Hormone uptake can increased on a LCHF diet. Sensitivity may be increased. Alternate fuel (ketones) can be used to signal some pathways.... It isn't full stop. Black or white.

Didn't say it STOPPED. I stated it was reduced dramatically. Lower testosterone enough and the result is less chance of building any muscle, loss of libido, fatigue, etc.

And yes, I am going with anecdotal evidence because there are no scientific peer reviewed studies on keto and body building. None. Nutritional ketogenic diets are just starting to gain in popularity. Myths surrounding it are slowly being debunked; we now know that keto adapted endurance athletes have higher VO2max, fat oxidation; lower lactate levels; and that muscle glycogen use and repletion patterns are the same for both the LCHF and higher carb athletes. Oh wait.... performance between the two groups were similar. I wonder how those long term keto adapted athletes got and mainatained those muscles?

I posted them. The original print was done in Muscular Development (a leading bodybuilding magazine) in 2008.

I thought I adressed the hormone levels needed for muscle. Yes, hormone levels matter. But how many bubbles do you need to wash your dishes?

Well it's much more than than what's being received in a keto diet if hypertrophy isn't happening since the studies are stating it.

Concerning the bolded, this was your initial link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976 There is NOTHING about ketosis in this. Nothing. I don't see anything about hormones being tured off either.

Not turned off, effectively reduced which is what I've stated all along. "Disrupted" doesn't mean "turned off". And yes while there's nothing on ketosis in the article, it's OBVIOUS the lowering of carbs reduces testosterone in the article. And of course the keto diet is the holy grail of carb deficiency, no?

Nothing here either. http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html Or here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365 Or here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
This one gets close but it is a three day study. If they were eating at keto levels they were just starting to make ketones. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

If it is there, I am missing it.

All of the articles show testosterone is lowered on low carb dieting. You don't see that?

Just gotta say that this is something I've studied in detail (as well as done bulk, cuts, and contest prep diets with keto) since my 20's. Through Journals of Science nonetheless. So I believe this debate has run it's route. My intent was to show that if people wanted to add any significant (visual) muscle mass, the standard keto diet (no carb cycling) isn't the way to go about it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dykask

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

Christine_72

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

psuLemon

Christine_72 wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

Typically i hear people say CICO doesnt work, tend to be new to this or some way of eating and don't realize its an energy balance equation.

dykask

psulemon wrote: »

show previous quotes

Christine_72 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

Typically i hear people say CICO doesnt work, tend to be new to this or some way of eating and don't realize its an energy balance equation.

That makes sense.

Christine_72

psulemon wrote: »

show previous quotes

Christine_72 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

Typically i hear people say CICO doesnt work, tend to be new to this or some way of eating and don't realize its an energy balance equation.

Yep you said it better

viren19890

This debate has been so enlightening. I always wondered that why even have carbs if they are so horrible and what not (ketogenic followers) but it clearly goes to show (from my understanding so far from the thread ) that it'll be a very productive way to build muscle mass if carbs were consumed with proper resistance training (obviously).

Just fyi this would've never happened in the locked LCHF forum. It's good to have an open policy so other side can be heard.

P.S FYI - what the heck -my comment got deleted because I asked someone if they were trolling. It was a question not an attack SMH

AlabasterVerve

viren19890 wrote: »

This debate has been so enlightening. I always wondered that why even have carbs if they are so horrible and what not (ketogenic followers) but it clearly goes to show (from my understanding so far from the thread ) that it'll be a very productive way to build muscle mass if carbs were consumed with proper resistance training (obviously).

Just fyi this would've never happened in the locked LCHF forum. It's good to have an open policy so other side can be heard.

P.S FYI - what the heck -my comment got deleted because I asked someone if they were trolling. It was a question not an attack SMH

Of course not. No one in the LCD forum is ignorant enough to insist you can't build muscle mass eating a low carb diet.

nvmomketo

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

Christine_72 wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

I think some who say CICO doesn't work may mean that the calculated TDEE did not work for them because it did not take into account health, food choices and subsequent hormal reactions.

I am another who found I "magically" lost more weight than expected on keto. I set my calories to 1420kcal per day when I was close to 190 lbs at 5'8". I was a completely sedentary SAHM who got a bit of exercise a couple of times per week coaching kids' sports. Barely enough to break a prolonged sweat.

That 1420kcal was set for me to lose about 1.5 lbs per week. Agressive but not too much.

Instead i lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I lost over 10 lbs per month for the first 3 months, and then in the 4th month I lost 5 lbs to hit the middle of my BMI and a size 8.

And I was eating over 1420 kcal per day. I averaged out my calories over the first three months and it was 1500kcal.

The calculated CI<CO didn't work for me. It should have taken months longer to lose my weight, and perhaps it would have if I hadn't changed my diet.

Before changing to keto, I could lose on 1500 per day but it wasn't that much, and I could not maintain it more than a couple of weeks due to hunger (partially due to reactive hypoglycemia symptoms). I lost slower and couldn't keep it going... Some people might say CICO didn't work for me there, but a more accurate statement would be "moderation" didn't work for me.

JMO

nvmomketo

psulemon wrote: »

show previous quotes

Christine_72 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

Typically i hear people say CICO doesnt work, tend to be new to this or some way of eating and don't realize its an energy balance equation.

Oops. Just saw this. More succinct than my reply was.

kimondo666

Keto is a very hard diet on your liver and kidneys. If you have problems with them you can die. This is not a diet for long term diet, prolonged keto diet(months or so) can damage your kidneys and liver very hard. thats why they are urine tests to measure level of ketones in blood. If i remember correctly when they turn black the level of ketones is critical.

Christine_72

kimondo666 wrote: »

Keto is a very hard diet on your liver and kidneys. If you have problems with them you can die. This is not a diet for long term diet, prolonged keto diet(months or so) can damage your kidneys and liver very hard. thats why they are urine tests to measure level of ketones in blood. If i remember correctly when they turn black the level of ketones is critical.

But there are people who have been doing keto for years that are healthy and have never experienced any health problems..

nvmomketo

It really isn't hard on the kidneys or liver. How could a higher fat diet be harmful to them in any way? Sure those with gall bladder issues may have to tweak their ketogenic diet more than most but liver and kidneys? Nah.

KetoneKaren

@kimondo666 Is it possible you are confusing ketoacidosis and nutritional ketosis? It is a very easy thing to do, lots of people mix those two up.,,

dykask

nvmomketo wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

show previous quotes

Christine_72 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

I think some who say CICO doesn't work may mean that the calculated TDEE did not work for them because it did not take into account health, food choices and subsequent hormal reactions.

I am another who found I "magically" lost more weight than expected on keto. I set my calories to 1420kcal per day when I was close to 190 lbs at 5'8". I was a completely sedentary SAHM who got a bit of exercise a couple of times per week coaching kids' sports. Barely enough to break a prolonged sweat.

That 1420kcal was set for me to lose about 1.5 lbs per week. Agressive but not too much.

Instead i lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I lost over 10 lbs per month for the first 3 months, and then in the 4th month I lost 5 lbs to hit the middle of my BMI and a size 8.

And I was eating over 1420 kcal per day. I averaged out my calories over the first three months and it was 1500kcal.

The calculated CI<CO didn't work for me. It should have taken months longer to lose my weight, and perhaps it would have if I hadn't changed my diet.

Before changing to keto, I could lose on 1500 per day but it wasn't that much, and I could not maintain it more than a couple of weeks due to hunger (partially due to reactive hypoglycemia symptoms). I lost slower and couldn't keep it going... Some people might say CICO didn't work for me there, but a more accurate statement would be "moderation" didn't work for me.

JMO

I glad you have figured out something that controls your hunger, running a 1000 kc / deficit is very aggressive in my book. Assuming you are still on the keto diet, once you go off of it you will add some weight (mostly water) back. I think that is a disadvantage of ketosis diets, the initial weight loss is temporary. (Loss of glycogen that the body will replace as soon as it can.)

KetoneKaren

@dykask - I know this wasn't directed to me, but wanted to comment & ask you a question.

I notice a rapid water weight gain if eat more carbs than usual over 2-3 days, which is disheartening, but I do know about the water weight thing. The water weight comes off again once I am back on low-"ish" carb again. I suspect my low carb is not as low as some people; I usually eat about 50-55g net carbs most days, which I find sustainable unless someone else is cooking for me (another disadvantage of LCHF).

Do you know if there is a compelling reason to "go off" a keto diet other than by choice? (I have a bit of insulin resistance and was planning to continue on a lower carb diet as a permanent way of eating, rather than as a temporary "diet".)

dykask

KetoneKaren wrote: »

@dykask - I know this wasn't directed to me, but wanted to comment & ask you a question.

I notice a rapid water weight gain if eat more carbs than usual over 2-3 days, which is disheartening, but I do know about the water weight thing. The water weight comes off again once I am back on low-"ish" carb again. I suspect my low carb is not as low as some people; I usually eat about 50-55g net carbs most days, which I find sustainable unless someone else is cooking for me (another disadvantage of LCHF).

Do you know if there is a compelling reason to "go off" a keto diet other than by choice? (I have a bit of insulin resistance and was planning to continue on a lower carb diet as a permanent way of eating, rather than as a temporary "diet".)

There are people that eat low carb for years. If it works and people are okay with it, more power to them I guess.

It probably would be good to see a doctor once in a while, to make sure everything is fine and going well. But we should all be doing that anyways. The human body can probably handle a wide range of foods as long as the diet is reasonable.

nvmomketo

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

nvmomketo wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

Christine_72 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

healthymom76 wrote: »

Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

Wow, you have some chip on your shoulder. Frankly you are first low carb fan that I've seen claim that CICO doesn't matter. The general claim is the LCHF meal is more satisfying so fewer calories are consumed. Which I'm sure is true for many people. It actually sounds like you have an error in how you were counting calories or you are not really losing any fat. When a body shifts into ketosis, it burns through stores of glycogen which releases a lot of water. So there is normally a very rapid weight loss period which is mostly just water being lost. If you calorie level is high enough to sustain you, you might end up just maintaining your weight in ketosis. The initial weight loss will be gained back when the body has enough glucose to rebuild its glycogen stores.

I think maybe when people say CICO doesn't work, they may mean that eating the "SAD" doesn't work for them, or that eating a diet with high carbs makes it hard for them to stay in a deficit and therefore makes it impossible to lose weight because they over eat. Some people also think CICO is a way of eating, like an eating plan or something. Just guessing here..

I think some who say CICO doesn't work may mean that the calculated TDEE did not work for them because it did not take into account health, food choices and subsequent hormal reactions.

I am another who found I "magically" lost more weight than expected on keto. I set my calories to 1420kcal per day when I was close to 190 lbs at 5'8". I was a completely sedentary SAHM who got a bit of exercise a couple of times per week coaching kids' sports. Barely enough to break a prolonged sweat.

That 1420kcal was set for me to lose about 1.5 lbs per week. Agressive but not too much.

Instead i lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I lost over 10 lbs per month for the first 3 months, and then in the 4th month I lost 5 lbs to hit the middle of my BMI and a size 8.

And I was eating over 1420 kcal per day. I averaged out my calories over the first three months and it was 1500kcal.

The calculated CI<CO didn't work for me. It should have taken months longer to lose my weight, and perhaps it would have if I hadn't changed my diet.

Before changing to keto, I could lose on 1500 per day but it wasn't that much, and I could not maintain it more than a couple of weeks due to hunger (partially due to reactive hypoglycemia symptoms). I lost slower and couldn't keep it going... Some people might say CICO didn't work for me there, but a more accurate statement would be "moderation" didn't work for me.

JMO

I glad you have figured out something that controls your hunger, running a 1000 kc / deficit is very aggressive in my book. Assuming you are still on the keto diet, once you go off of it you will add some weight (mostly water) back. I think that is a disadvantage of ketosis diets, the initial weight loss is temporary. (Loss of glycogen that the body will replace as soon as it can.)

I wasn't on a 1000kcal per day deficit. I was on aboy a 700kcal deficit but I ate close to an extra 100kcal per day. So a 600kcal per day deficit. Supposedly. 600kcal X 7 days per week equals 4200kcal deficit per week. Since a pound is 3500kcal, I should have been losing close to 1.5 lbs per week instead of double that.

I'm a sedentary middle aged woman who lost the equivalent of 3 lbs of fat per week. In order to do that I should have been eating a 1500kcal deficit on a daily basis. That would put my TDEE at close to 3000kcal. THAT is where the calculated CICO did not work for me. There is no way that is right. And I weighed my food so that wasn't it.

And yes, most people regain the lost water weight if they go back to higher carb. It's only a couple of pounds, and just water, so I'm hoping that most people wouldn't care.

But I don't plan on ever going back to high or moderate carb. The foods aren't worth the health benefits that I would lose.

KetoneKaren

@nvmomketo I know you have probably posted this, but what are your net carb grams?

psuLemon

@nvmomketo how much weight have you lost in the past month?

nvmomketo

KetoneKaren wrote: »

@nvmomketo I know you have probably posted this, but what are your net grams?

@KetoneKaren For losing it was set at 1420 kcal they are 18g carbs (5%), 118g fat (75%) and 71g protein (20%). Net carbs? I don't know. Maybe half or two thrids of my total carbs. It's all from veggies, nuts, and whatever there is in eggs.

I am not often trying to lose anymore so I usually eat a good 500-1000 kcal more now but the percentages are probably about the same. I guessing my carbs are now maybe 20-30g, fat is 120-140g, and protein is around 80g... Just a guess.

psulemon wrote: »

@nvmomketo how much weight have you lost in the past month?

Not much. My weight bounced up with an autoimmune issue, and as it resolves I am slowly cutting back a bit on my foods. Probably close to 2000kcal. I am down a pond or two this month.

ETA I am at a good weight now. About a size 10.

KetoneKaren

@nvmomketo Do you have any trouble sustaining that level of carbs? (I guess you must not). The only thing I resent about LCHF is that I get petulant about limiting root vegetables. I like beets and carrots and parsnips. I also like edamame. I can live without bread and rice and pasta, they just give me heartburn anyway, but I get a bit pi$$y about limiting the others. I have settled on a higher carb intake as you know, having most of my carb intake in the evening so I stay relatively ketotic during the day. It's easy for me to eat mostly protein & fat for breakfast and lunch. Sorry if that's boring.